That would be super harsh but not necessarily the most "recoil" movement. In fact I don't need that experiment, I've owned a Theoben Sirocco in .177! Best hung on the wall really; beautifully made but 'orrible thing to shoot.
To maximise surge, which is the movement which is most offputting and conducive to hold sensitivity, surely you'd want a really wide cylinder, heavy piston but undersize transfer port, and a soft spring with little preload.
“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.” - Marcus Aurelius
Let's just remind ourselves of some wise words I read somewhere or other, Adam.
“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.” - Marcus Aurelius
I would have agreed with your suggestion that surge contributed the most to hold sensitivity, but am now growingly convinced that the initial acceleration into recoil could be worse. Your Sirocco had a short stroke and, to compensate for the resultant short cylinder pulse (pellet and piston traveling in the same direction) necessitated higher peak cylinder pressure which, in turn, necessitated higher force acting on the piston, causing fierce initial recoil acceleration, giving the rifle a reputation of being 'snappy'. The snappy shot cycle has long been thought a consequence of the gas ram, when in fact it was a consequence of the short stroke, and gas ram rifles with longer strokes can function satisfactorily with lesser recoil acceleration.
Recoil acceleration is, of course, only one of several contributing factors to hold sensitivity; displacement plays a part, along with surge acceleration and displacement. To maximise hold sensitivity would entail increasing all of the factors, easily achieved by fitting a very stiff mainspring with little preload, lightening the piston, over-shortening the stroke, or all at once.
Very interesting Jim. I had your earlier writings in mind, but I haven't bought a mag for several years now.
My thinking is that the surge is harder to consistently manage in your hold. The classic "artillery hold" is the most easily repeatable hold, but even if the butt pad instead has quite a firm contact with your shoulder there's still a good chance the recoil movement won't vary too much. The cushioning of clothing and flesh still allowing the rifle to move back the same amount. On the other hand a firm pull into your shoulder depends on muscle tension in your hands and arms. That can be more variable and, I would say, is more prone to a large surge movement amplifying those variations.
“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.” - Marcus Aurelius
Thank you for the kind words, Tony and Scott.
The first point perhaps should be that the pellet emerges from the muzzle very early in the surge, Adam, so that limits its effect on hold sensitivity to some degree, whereas the pellet is in the barrel for the entirety of the compression stroke.
I base my thoughts on hold sensitivity on HFT, specifically, HFT at Nomads ground, of which very little is level, and 80% of shots are taken prone, so the shooter's elbows are rarely level, which complicates trying to maintain a consistent hold, in addition to which, many shots are angled up or down. Springers that consistently do well at Nomads tend to be those with gentle recoil acceleration courtesy of soft mainsprings, the preload of which also helps soften piston bounce and hence surge.